FY07-09 proposal 200727500
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Impact of American shad in the Columbia River |
| Proposal ID | 200727500 |
| Organization | Columbia River Research Laboratory |
| Short description | American are the most abundant anadromous fish in the Columbia River, although we know little about their potential impacts on salmonids and other parts of the aquatic community. We propose basic research on potential impacts of juvenile and adult shad. |
| Information transfer | Annual reports, peer-review publications, presentation at regional and national meetings |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| James Petersen | U.S. Geological Survey | jim_petersen@usgs.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| James Petersen | U.S. Geological Survey | jim_petersen@usgs.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.19 | 123.83 | Columbia River | |
| 47.71 | 121.52 | Columbia River | |
| 45.85 | 120.0 | Columbia River |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: American Shadsecondary: All Anadromous Salmonids
secondary: White Sturgeon Lower Columbia River
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199007800 | Squawfish Management Support | This project should aid in evaluating some aspects of the NPMP, such as indirect effects of prey types and potential for interactions with system management. |
| BPA | 200310700 | Eval of Salmonid Growth | Larval shad may be important source of food for salmon on occassion. |
| BPA | 199102800 | Pit Tagging Wild Chinook | Survival of wild chinook may be related to feeding/competition with shad in the lower Columbia. |
| BPA | 199102900 | Post-Release Survival of Fall | Survival of fall chinook may be related to feeding/competition with shad in the lower Columbia. |
| BPA | 199302900 | Survival Est For Passage Throu | Final survival of fall chinook may be related to shad competition in the lower Columbia River |
| BPA | 198605000 | Evaluate Sturgeon Physical Hab | Sturgeon recruitment could be related to feeding, growth rates, or thiaminase deficiency |
| BPA | 198605001 | Experimental White Sturgeon Re | Sturgeon success may be related to growth rate, recruitment, or thiaminase deficiency |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult shad feeding and potential competition | Hypothesis: Adult American shad feed during their passage through the lower Columbia River and thus may compete with outmigrating juvenile salmon. | Lower Columbia | Ecological Interactions |
| Juvenile shad as prey | Hypothesis: Larval or juvenile shad are an important component of the diet of migrating juvenile salmon, particularly late-run Snake River Chinook salmon. | Lower Columbia | Ecological Interactions |
| Shad effects on white sturgeon | Hypothesis: Consumption of American shad is causing a thiamine deficiency in white sturgeon, which may result in reduced reproductive potential. | Lower Columbia | Ecological interactions |
| Shad may be a disease vector | Hypothesis: Ichthyophonus emergence in the Columbia River is resulting in cross infection to fishes, such as salmonids, northern pikeminnows, and other piscivorous species. | Lower Columbia | Ecological interactions |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Reporting | Annual and peer-review reports | 3/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $200,000 |
|
Biological objectives Adult shad feeding and potential competition Juvenile shad as prey Shad effects on white sturgeon Shad may be a disease vector |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect data to test hypotheses | Necessary for research and hypothesis testing. | 3/1/2007 | 10/30/2009 | $750,000 |
|
Biological objectives Adult shad feeding and potential competition Juvenile shad as prey Shad effects on white sturgeon Shad may be a disease vector |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties of shad effects |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | PIT tag adult shad | Necessary to estimate population at mouth | 3/1/2007 | 6/1/2009 | $54,209 |
|
Biological objectives Adult shad feeding and potential competition |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fringe Benefits | 30% on salary | $31,927 | $39,556 | $38,155 |
| Supplies | Isotope analysis | $32,500 | $32,500 | $32,500 |
| Travel | Boat costs and per diem | $20,000 | $21,000 | $22,000 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $87,562 | $120,370 | $121,694 |
| Personnel | Coordinator & field | $19,445 | $20,690 | $21,310 |
| Personnel | Parsley (0.25) | $14,778 | $15,699 | $16,170 |
| Personnel | Field staff (3) | $42,274 | $79,748 | $82,081 |
| Supplies | PIT tags (1000) | $2,250 | $2,250 | $2,250 |
| Supplies | Thiaminase analysis | $18,000 | $18,500 | $19,000 |
| Supplies | Misc Nets, field gear | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Totals | $278,736 | $360,313 | $365,160 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $1,004,209 |
| Total work element budget: | $1,004,209 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USGS | Salary | $40,000 | $42,000 | $43,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USGS | Boats | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $50,000 | $52,000 | $53,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $120,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $120,000 |
Comments: FY 2010 is a writeup year |
Future O&M costs: This is a research project so there should be no longterm opperations or maintenance costs.
Termination date: August 31, 210
Comments: Research results and products should be completed by this time, including reports and peer-reviewed publications. Results may lead to additional hypotheses, or the conclusion that American shad are not causing enough of an impact to warrant further research, study, or management.
Final deliverables: Annual reports Peer-review publications Datasets Presentations to regional and national groups and conferences
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $133,334 | $133,333 | $133,333 | $400,000 | Expense | Basinwide | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $133,334 | $133,333 | $133,333 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Fundable with high priority. This is a well thought-out proposal, whose results could be of great significance in the management of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and other fishes in the Columbia Basin. The ISRP has identified several uncertainties associated with American shad in the Columbia Basin (ISRP Retrospective Report, ISRP 2005-14.) This proposal reviews those and is designed to address them. A proposal similar to this one was previously submitted by the same proponents under the Innovative Proposal initiative of the Council. The ISRP gave it a high ranking and recommended it for funding. The Council also recommended to BPA that it be funded. However, BPA did not fund it. Because there is so little known about shad in the Columbia River Basin even a small increment of knowledge on their effects on other species would be beneficial. Technical and scientific background: The proposal clearly identifies and reviews the shad problem. The proponents could have given more details on how they arrived at the four identified hypotheses. One hypothesis is that there is competition with salmonids for food, which might lead to an effect on growth rate of salmonids. To demonstrate this would require significantly more intensive research than is proposed. The proposed isotope work is not necessarily a short-cut method to arrive at such a conclusion. Early research summarized in the proposal suggests another hypothesis, that availability of juvenile shad may provide a consistent food source to northern pikeminnow when salmonids are not available, thus contributing to the ultimate size of the pikeminnow population and the associated increase in losses of juvenile salmonids. The shad population is a substantial biomass. A bioenergetics model would be required to analyze the validity of this hypothesis. Work on other hypotheses (disease, shad as prey, nutrient deficiency) might be appropriate at this time, but not necessarily as part of this proposal. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: There is no relevant Mainstem Subbasin Plan. However, the questions addressed by this proposal are of considerable significance in implementation of mainstem measures in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Relationships to other projects: The work is put in context. The proposal would benefit if linkages were shown to several other projects working on food web relationships (e.g., 20030100). Other projects, which might obtain related information are identified, but there are none being conducted on shad per se. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The proposal does not adequately consider the difficulties in assessing competitive effects on growth and survival of anadromous fish and sturgeon. The simplified food web in the narrative is overly generalized and does not show linkages from invertebrates to algae or detritus from vascular plants. These links, and others, complicate isotope work. Addition of sulfur into the isotope analyses might help. The other components (disease, nutrients, shad as prey) are adequately described and appropriate. Monitoring and evaluation: The project includes no manipulation, and is itself monitoring in nature. The facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate. Information transfer: There is a good plan for data release, and the proponents have commendable publication records.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Fundable with high priority. This is a well thought-out proposal, whose results could be of great significance in the management of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and other fishes in the Columbia Basin. The ISRP has identified several uncertainties associated with American shad in the Columbia Basin (ISRP Retrospective Report, ISRP 2005-14.) This proposal reviews those and is designed to address them. A proposal similar to this one was previously submitted by the same proponents under the Innovative Proposal initiative of the Council. The ISRP gave it a high ranking and recommended it for funding. The Council also recommended to BPA that it be funded. However, BPA did not fund it. Because there is so little known about shad in the Columbia River Basin even a small increment of knowledge on their effects on other species would be beneficial. Technical and scientific background: The proposal clearly identifies and reviews the shad problem. The proponents could have given more details on how they arrived at the four identified hypotheses. One hypothesis is that there is competition with salmonids for food, which might lead to an effect on growth rate of salmonids. To demonstrate this would require significantly more intensive research than is proposed. The proposed isotope work is not necessarily a short-cut method to arrive at such a conclusion. Early research summarized in the proposal suggests another hypothesis, that availability of juvenile shad may provide a consistent food source to northern pikeminnow when salmonids are not available, thus contributing to the ultimate size of the pikeminnow population and the associated increase in losses of juvenile salmonids. The shad population is a substantial biomass. A bioenergetics model would be required to analyze the validity of this hypothesis. Work on other hypotheses (disease, shad as prey, nutrient deficiency) might be appropriate at this time, but not necessarily as part of this proposal. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: There is no relevant Mainstem Subbasin Plan. However, the questions addressed by this proposal are of considerable significance in implementation of mainstem measures in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Relationships to other projects: The work is put in context. The proposal would benefit if linkages were shown to several other projects working on food web relationships (e.g., 20030100). Other projects, which might obtain related information are identified, but there are none being conducted on shad per se. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The proposal does not adequately consider the difficulties in assessing competitive effects on growth and survival of anadromous fish and sturgeon. The simplified food web in the narrative is overly generalized and does not show linkages from invertebrates to algae or detritus from vascular plants. These links, and others, complicate isotope work. Addition of sulfur into the isotope analyses might help. The other components (disease, nutrients, shad as prey) are adequately described and appropriate. Monitoring and evaluation: The project includes no manipulation, and is itself monitoring in nature. The facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate. Information transfer: There is a good plan for data release, and the proponents have commendable publication records.